TARUN AGARWALA,J. - (1.) The petitioners are husband and wife and have filed the writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to enquire the matter personally and protection may be given to the petitioners from respondent nos. 5 and 6 who are son and daughter-in-law of petitioners. (a-i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to evict the respondent nos. 5 and 6 from illegal possession of the constructed area of ground floor of the petitioners and restore the possession of the petitioners in the aforesaid place as earlier. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no.4 to go on the spot and take a necessary action in the matter of petitioners and connect electricity connection of water motor of the petitioners so that they may get water through water pipe. (c) Issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the instant case. (d) Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that respondent no.5 is the son of petitioner no.1 and step son of petitioner no.2. Respondent no.6 is the daughter-in-law. The petitioners' contend that respondent no.5 is an electrical mechanic and has bad habits mixing with antisocial elements and creates a nuisance in the house. The petitioners' contend that they had broken all relationship with respondent no.5 and the daughter-in-law in the year 2009. In this regard, an affidavit on a stamp paper was also executed on 29th April, 2009. Respondent nos. 5 and 6 have been living elsewhere since then. It was contended that since respondent no.5 continued with his nefarious activities, the petitioners issued a news item on 29th January, 2013 disassociating themselves with respondent nos. 5 and 6.
(3.) It is alleged that on 16th October, 2016 respondent no. 5 and 6 forcefully entered the house of the petitioner no.1 and took possession of one room on the ground floor. A complaint was made by the petitioners before the Station House Officer, who only forced the petitioners to enter into a compromise with respondent nos. 5 and 6 and made a challani report under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. It was contended that in this compromise, respondent nos. 5 and 6 were paid a sum of Rs. 2 lacs to leave the premises inspite of which respondent nos. 5 and 6 refused to leave the premises. In this regard, the petitioner approached the Station House Officer again on 21st October, 2016 and gave representations to all the police authorities on 10th November, 2016 but nothing happened. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 before the Court, which is also pending.;